Advertisements

"wege" <> wrote in message
news:...
>
>
> Which is the "proper" way to reply to an email - top-post or
> bottom-post?
>
>
> Thanks,
> wege
>
>

Email - doesn't matter.

If you are referring to a NEWSGROUP, such as this, then the accepted way is
to trim the post you are replying to and post your reply underneath. After
all, you don't read a book from the bottom up, do you?

Advertisements

wege wrote:
> Which is the "proper" way to reply to an email - top-post or
> bottom-post?

In some corporate /email/ environments, the proper reply is 'text over,
fullquote under' TOFU -- and that tofu style is passed from a project
manager to a project underling to a project supervisor to a project
coordinator etc.

In almost 100% of /newsgroup/ replies, neither top posting tofu which is
untrimmed and non-contextualized nor 'bottom' posting in an 'opposite'
untrimmed noncontextualized manner is optimal.

In newsgroup replies, the critical elements are the trimming and the
contextualizing and the attributing.

If you properly trim away all of the previous post to which you aren't
responding while leaving the correctly located attribution and make your
remarks preceded by an empty line _under_/after the precise words to
which you are replying and then trim away everything else, your replies
will demonstrate that you are able to read and understand what was said
before you replied, and also that your remarks will be 'on the money'
responsive to the preceding words which very words will be right before
your eyes when you make/type your own remarks.

People who fail to trim and contextualize also fail to read what was
said before accurately, and fail to address their remarks directly to
the words which were previously stated.

gordon wrote:
>
>
> "wege" <> wrote in message
> news:...
>
>>
>>
>> Which is the "proper" way to reply to an email - top-post or
>> bottom-post?
>>
>>
>> Thanks,
>> wege
>>
>>
>
> Email - doesn't matter.
>
> If you are referring to a NEWSGROUP, such as this, then the accepted way
> is to trim the post you are replying to and post your reply underneath.
> After all, you don't read a book from the bottom up, do you?

The book reading analogy has some problems. If you lay down your book
after finishing chapter 4, do you read chapters 1, 2, 3, and 4 again
before starting on chapter 5?

SgtMinor wrote:
> gordon wrote:
>> If you are referring to a NEWSGROUP, such as this, then the accepted
>> way is to trim the post you are replying to and post your reply
>> underneath. After all, you don't read a book from the bottom up, do
>> you?
>
> The book reading analogy has some problems. If you lay down your book
> after finishing chapter 4, do you read chapters 1, 2, 3, and 4 again
> before starting on chapter 5?

Except the analogy in this example would be a special way of reading a
book or pamphlet in which you tore out and disposed of the pages and
parts of pages which you weren't talking about. It would be a
non-analogous process by which you highlighted the part of a chapter's
page which you wanted your friend to read, and when you handed your
friend the book, all of the other pages and words disappeared except
those which were highlighted.

And, to further specialize the analogy -- the disappearing book also
would have a special feature. The special feature would enable you to
push an electronic button and cause all of the rest of the book which
had disappeared to reappear, in case your friend wanted to read the
entire book, chapter, or page before commenting on the particular part
which you had highlighted.

The reason that it is completely unnecessary to retain any words which
aren't specifically being replied to is because all of those words and
all of the words which preceded it are still available. Every message
has a References section which contains the message id of the message
which is being replied and every other message of the thread which
preceded it -- so there is no need for anyone to retain any of the
'extra' words to which they are not replying. There only needs to be
enough 'immediate' context to provide a 'reference' which remarks are
being revised and extended or rebutted or agreed or otherwise remarked.

All of the rest of the 'framework' which accompanied those few words
which are left as a 'skeleton' can be disposed of, because the entire
body of the thread is recoverable by alternate means if someone should
wish.

That is an argument for aggressive trimming; the elimination of not
only chapters 1, 2, 3, and 4, but also almost all of chapter 5.

Stickems. wrote:
> Top post is the easiest and quickest way to both reply and to follow a
> discussion.

Top posting destroys a discussion's order, and generally demonstrates
that the top poster isn't able to read what was written before, and
generally demonstrates that the top poster is unable to respond directly
or accurately to what was said before, and then confuses any other
readers as to what particular part of the previous conversation was
being addressed by the top poster.

In addition, top posting demonstrates that the top poster is lazy [too
lazy to properly trim and contextualize], egocentrical [whatever s/he
says s/he thinks is so important it belongs higher up than anything
anyone else had to say], and inconsiderate [uncaring as to carrying hir
fair share of a community effort to organize the conversation in a
proper sequential order].

So, the lazy egocentrical inconsiderate top poster who can't read or
write soon finds that hir posts are invisible to quite a number of other
readers, because they have killfilled hir.

Ain't that the *truth*! And you don't have
to do the scrolly thing all the way down to
the nethers to find out what's going on...
Near wore slap out a scroll wheel doing that.
And that's the way they do it in the M$ Public
groups, so must be something to it.

"Stickems." <> wrote in
news:QGiIh.50177$:
> Top post is the easiest and quickest way to both reply and to follow a
> discussion.
>
>
> "wege" <> wrote in message
> news:...
>|
>|
>| Which is the "proper" way to reply to an email - top-post or
>| bottom-post?
>|
>|
>| Thanks,
>| wege
>|
>|
>
>

--

The personification of "ambition" is a flea
crawling up an elephant's tail with rape on its mind.

The personification of "delusion" is that flea
arriving at its climax screaming "suffer baby, suffer."

The response to be considered may be that either
top or bottom posting are correct and/or useful
depending on the customs of the setting in which one
is participating. Microsoft Public's groups, being
case-in-point, as utilizing top-posting - but in this
group, most of the regulars prefer bottom-posting
because that is the general consensus of the group.

To me, there's a lot to be said for reading the most
recent comment, and scrolling back to see where the
author is coming from; as juxtaposed to downloading
and then scrolling through a monotonious diatribe to find
out the the author is totally missing the point of the
"Subject" field by his/her filter/focus and editing thusly.

When folks search a topic (as related to this group)
they want an *answer* first - not scroll through a
disertation on how Einstein created kibbles and bits.

However, the poster asked about his *e-Mail*...

If you've ever done government, commercial, or clinical
correspondence, you attach previous communications in
descending order to the back, and sometimes use a cover
sheet; most-recent first; most-distant last;
not-necessarily all the way back to the original -
if those issues have since been resolved. The current
message is most readily accessable. The preliminary
stuff, you have to use a little effort to go back to.

In my experience, most corporate types like the newest
message (response) on top, with at least the most
recent appended to the bottom - as a quick reference.
Some like the whole conversation, because they're doing
a lot of issues and don't have time to keep records, and
don't like to be "told" what they've previously said -
when they can zip down and just jog their memories... etc.

But, that's just a common communications protocol.

If something in the original message makes you wonder
how the sender would prefer the response, you might
inject a quick comment asking how they'd like to r'cve
future x-missions... The original sender might appreciate
your courtesy and it'd enhance your future business options
and/or appeal.

"Commuication" implies "agreement"; thus, "When in
Rome then do as the Romans do" and everything should
be just fine! (o:

Have a nice day.

--

The personification of "ambition" is a flea
crawling up an elephant's tail with rape on its mind.

The personification of "delusion" is that flea
arriving at its climax screaming "suffer baby, suffer."

SgtMinor wrote:
> Blinky the Shark wrote:
>> SgtMinor wrote:
>>
>>
>>>The book reading analogy has some problems. If you lay down your book
>>>after finishing chapter 4, do you read chapters 1, 2, 3, and 4 again
>>>before starting on chapter 5?
>>
>>
>> That's why you trim the non-relevant points before inter- or
>> bottom-posting.
>
> That's why the book reading analogy is no good. People don't rip
> chapters out of a book just because they're done reading them.

SgtMinor wrote:
> Blinky the Shark wrote:
>
>> SgtMinor wrote:
>>
>>
>>> The book reading analogy has some problems. If you lay down your
>>> book after finishing chapter 4, do you read chapters 1, 2, 3, and 4
>>> again before starting on chapter 5?
>>
>>
>>
>> That's why you trim the non-relevant points before inter- or
>> bottom-posting.
>>
>>
>
> That's why the book reading analogy is no good. People don't rip
> chapters out of a book just because they're done reading them.

I've been bottom posting for years, but I still think that top posting
makes more sense. It has to do with the way that Netscape and/or Mozilla
orders posts I suppose, but I can read one post and then the follow up
has the pertinant data right on top, easy to find. No scrolling down.
But years of arguments on this issue has not produced any clear cut
winner other than that bottom posting is more prevalent.

Rôgêr wrote:
> SgtMinor wrote:
>> Blinky the Shark wrote:
>>
>>> SgtMinor wrote:
>>>
>>>
>>>> The book reading analogy has some problems. If you lay down your
>>>> book after finishing chapter 4, do you read chapters 1, 2, 3, and 4
>>>> again before starting on chapter 5?
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>> That's why you trim the non-relevant points before inter- or
>>> bottom-posting.
>>>
>>>
>>
>> That's why the book reading analogy is no good. People don't rip
>> chapters out of a book just because they're done reading them.
>
> I've been bottom posting for years, but I still think that top posting
> makes more sense. It has to do with the way that Netscape and/or Mozilla
> orders posts I suppose, but I can read one post and then the follow up
> has the pertinant data right on top, easy to find. No scrolling down.
> But years of arguments on this issue has not produced any clear cut
> winner other than that bottom posting is more prevalent.

Actually, it's provided one clear cut winner for the terminally lazy and
a better clear cut winner for those of us who still have a pulse.

Blinky the Shark wrote:
> SgtMinor wrote:
>
>>Blinky the Shark wrote:
>>
>>>SgtMinor wrote:
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>>The book reading analogy has some problems. If you lay down your book
>>>>after finishing chapter 4, do you read chapters 1, 2, 3, and 4 again
>>>>before starting on chapter 5?
>>>
>>>
>>>That's why you trim the non-relevant points before inter- or
>>>bottom-posting.
>>
>>That's why the book reading analogy is no good. People don't rip
>>chapters out of a book just because they're done reading them.
>
>
> They can if they own the book.
>

Cam-man wrote:
> Blinky the Shark inspired greatness with:
>
>>Actually, it's provided one clear cut winner for the terminally lazy and
>>a better clear cut winner for those of us who still have a pulse.
>
> And I like to highlight the text in question, hit reply, and eliminate
> extraneous text.

Of course, snipping is a separate issue. Top posters always confuse
that issue with the top/bottom posting question.

Surprisingly, over on the mozilla.org server, the rule is NO snipping.

SgtMinor wrote:
> Blinky the Shark wrote:
>
>> SgtMinor wrote:
>>>That's why the book reading analogy is no good. People don't rip
>>>chapters out of a book just because they're done reading them.
>>
>> They can if they own the book.
>
> They don't own Usenet.

On Fri, 09 Mar 2007 22:28:11 -0500 in 24hoursupport.helpdesk SgtMinor
<>, intended to write something
intelligible, but instead wrote :
>Blinky the Shark wrote:
>
>> SgtMinor wrote:
>>
>>>Blinky the Shark wrote:
>>>
>>>>SgtMinor wrote:
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>>The book reading analogy has some problems. If you lay down your book
>>>>>after finishing chapter 4, do you read chapters 1, 2, 3, and 4 again
>>>>>before starting on chapter 5?
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>That's why you trim the non-relevant points before inter- or
>>>>bottom-posting.
>>>
>>>That's why the book reading analogy is no good. People don't rip
>>>chapters out of a book just because they're done reading them.
>>
>>
>> They can if they own the book.
>>
>
>They don't own Usenet.

Share This Page

Welcome to Velocity Reviews!

Welcome to the Velocity Reviews, the place to come for the latest tech news and reviews.

Please join our friendly community by clicking the button below - it only takes a few seconds and is totally free. You'll be able to chat with other enthusiasts and get tech help from other members.
Sign up now!